Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
agill wrote:I think they're interested in the C/D version.
AirlineCritic wrote:Congrats to Philippines and Sweden! Good choice.
SAS A340 wrote:Gripen C or E? Is it known how many they want to aquire? probably 15-20..? At least new ones,since we don´t offer used ones anymore.
Ozair wrote:Not sure it would be a wise acquisition, not only because there are no Gripens C/D available, but used F-16s have won multiple competitions over the Gripen lately. Additionally there are more regional F-16 operators, likely improving integration and training.
Ozair wrote:Bit early for that, nothing has been ordered, it is just a news report on a DND finding. As already indicated they still need to allocate funding which is not easy right now for an acquisition this size.
bunumuring wrote:Thanks for your information! Your absolute last point is most interesting....
SAS A340 wrote:According to Swedish press, Philippines are interested in 10-12 Gripen C.
Ann Wolgers, press officer at Saab, confirms that pilots from the Philippine Air Force have been in Sweden and flown the Gripen.
Mortyman wrote:Is the country considering any other types / contenders ?
Gripen vs F-16 for the Philippines: JAS-39 may have the edge
art wrote:If US is offering to give F-16 away for almost nothing, SAAB cannot compete.
art wrote:Yet the writer thinks that Gripen's chances are slightly better than F-16's.
Devilfish wrote:art wrote:If US is offering to give F-16 away for almost nothing, SAAB cannot compete.
No such thing was mentioned in the article.
Washington announced that US$2.4 billion would have to be provided to the Philippines to acquire 12 F-16 Vipers.
art wrote:It is this bit in the article that I find difficult to understand. Perhaps the writer has poor command of English or translation is bad:
Washington announced that US$2.4 billion would have to be provided to the Philippines to acquire 12 F-16 Vipers.
art wrote:Does it mean US would have to give Philippines US$2.4 billion credit? Or does it mean US would have to give Philippines US$2.4 billion?
art wrote:You know the zone, I think. Any idea when a decision will be made? Has US Congress approved the supply of F-16 and weapons?
Devilfish wrote:art wrote:It is this bit in the article that I find difficult to understand. Perhaps the writer has poor command of English or translation is bad:Washington announced that US$2.4 billion would have to be provided to the Philippines to acquire 12 F-16 Vipers.
Nevertheless, $2.4B for 12 "armed" Block 70 Vipers nearing the end of their production run is still a very steep price for the PAF to pay.
"However, this amount does not include the delivery of the AGM-84-L-1 Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles. They will need at least another 120 million USD."art wrote:Does it mean US would have to give Philippines US$2.4 billion credit? Or does it mean US would have to give Philippines US$2.4 billion?
I too, am at a loss on how to interpret that. If indeed it comes under the DSCA's Foreign Military Financing program, then it's a really powerful incentive -- (sans strings).....
Definition
"That portion of the United States Security Assistance program authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, which once provided defense articles and services to recipients on a nonreimbursable (grant) basis. Funding for MAP was consolidated under the Foreign Military Financing program beginning in Fiscal Year 1990."art wrote:You know the zone, I think. Any idea when a decision will be made? Has US Congress approved the supply of F-16 and weapons?
Am just a kibitzer like most everyone else. I had long ago given up making heads or tails of the AFP's acquisition programs.
US/Philippines discuss roadmap for weapon buys including potential multi-role fighter sale
art wrote:Does it make more sense to select the American F-16 rather than the Swedish Gripen C/D, due to the politics involved in the South China Sea, regardless of which better suits PAF requirements?
art wrote:In the case of procurement of fighters for the PAF being delayed further, what about considering KAI KF-21? The initial air defence version should complete testing in 2026.
JuggernautAlpha wrote:T-7 orders should keep Saab aviation division afloat
SAS A340 wrote:All A modell are either scraped or converted to C. We nearly start scraping some C before Russia got from idiots to extreme idiots.
art wrote:I assume that Gripen C production will end after the dozen incomplete frames are finished. If PAF got those and wanted more in the future, they could buy some of the C's in SwAF service as the SwAF will be receiving new E's for the next few years. That would suit a country with a limited budget for fighters and should suit Sweden, too. Why store/scrap the SwAF surplus C's when they could carry on being used by the PAF, generating spares business for SAAB?
SAS A340 wrote:I acctualy haven't heard anything of a Philippine order, but if true, i guess there will be no more C after that. Just my guess.
JuggernautAlpha wrote:I think Sweden has a chance to pull of a win if PAF pilots are really impressed with the Gripen C, they may recommend the E model
MANILA – Department of National Defense (DND) Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. said Tuesday night they have deliberated on a "new set of specifications" and "quantity" for the country's multi-role fighter (MRF) program, which they would present to President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. for approval.
"(On) the MRF (Multi-role fighters) we just set, to be approved by the President, a new set of specs that we need and a new quantity. We deliberated upon it. There are few tweaks," Teodoro said during a chance interview with reporters at the National Day and Armed Forces Day of the Republic of Korea held at the Grand Hyatt Manila in Taguig City.
JuggernautAlpha wrote:4. Their defense secretary was also quoted on saying they should prioritize on buying the "best" equipment even if its not necessarily the most "affordable" equipment. My connections in the Philippine military have said that the current front runner for their next gen fighter is the KF-21. So if they can really get the approval for funds, the dream scenario is for them to acquire some 30 KF-21s, its probably gona be the most expensive option but with the Philippine GDP expected to hit $1 Trillion by the early 2030s, it might not be too farfetched.
art wrote:Perhaps the budget could be raised from $1.2 billion to procure an initial dozen to be followed by more when further funding is available.
RJMAZ wrote:32 used Blackhawk helicopters.
MIELEC, Poland, Feb. 22, 2022 – PZL Mielec, a Lockheed Martin company (NYSE: LMT) has signed a contract award with the Philippine Department of National Defense (DND) to manufacture 32 additional S-70i™ Black Hawk® utility helicopters for the Philippine Air Force.
JuggernautAlpha wrote:Anyway, the F/A-50 doesn't meet the current range, payload and overall capability requirements of the Philippine airforce for a multi-role fighter. In fact the project that purchased those planes weren't even referred to as MRF, the name of the program was LIFT (Lead in fighter trainers) under the Horizon 1 program back in 2012. there is another program within Horizon 3 called the SAA (Surface Attack Aircraft) program that the F/A-50 is contending for.
JuggernautAlpha wrote:Alright, but all the same, right now as it stands the F/A-50 is not a contender for any Philippine MRF projects. I don't know if the changes to these TOR requirements will make them take a 2nd look at it. SKorea has been floating the idea of an F-50 around, single seat version of the F/A-50. Maybe that would have an even higher fuel fraction.
JuggernautAlpha wrote:but if we're going to compare, Gripen C/D vs F/A-50, which has basically the same engine, then the Gripen does come on top based on the graphic.
JuggernautAlpha wrote:Meanwhile the US is already in talks for used block 40 Vipers to the PAF as part of different project, the security assistance roadmap, this is basically in exchange for letting US forces operate in Philippine soil as part of the EDCA agreement.
Depending on threat perceptions and thoughts on the future trajectory of regional security, Manila has to consider whether it needs to field the new capability as soon as possible or whether it can afford to wait. The answer to this question bears significance to the final decision made. Acquiring either new-build or second-hand F-16s requires a significant lead time before the first aircraft would be delivered to the Philippines. Manila would have to queue up for manufacturing slots behind existing customers who have placed their orders years in advance. Similarly, deciding to take up the US offer of second-hand F-16s, which need to be overhauled and upgraded, will also take up a lot of time to accomplish. In either scenario, the PAF would likely get its first aircraft within three to five years from signing the contract. In comparison, Saab has assured Manila that it could deliver an initial batch of four aircraft to the Philippines in under one year. This would help PAF reach initial operating capability significantly faster than in the case of the F-16.